Friday, July 28, 2006

You can’t call this the Arab-Israeli war of 06, since the usual belligerents have declined to participate. You could call it World War Three, as Newt Gingrich has suggested; he has a point, but that annoys everyone who wanted the Cold War to be WW3. (Somehow World War Four is less scary if we got another one out of the way without a nuclear swapmeet.) You could call it the Israel-Hezbollah War, but that lets the Syrians and Iranians off the hook.

So let’s just call it Bush’s Fault! At least that’s what Howard Dean proposes. The energetic head of the DNC had this to say:

“If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

The problem with Moral Authority is its antonym, the Palestinian Authority. Does Dean mean the Oslo accords? President Clinton had been in office less than a year. There‘s a reason they’re not the Little Rock Accords: Norwegian diplomats did all the heavy lifting. (Specifically, suspending disbelief about Arafat’s motives, which can throw your back out if you’re not careful.) Does Dean mean the Camp David negotiations, which ended in the bloody second intifada? Details, details. Moral authority, that’s what counts. Doesn’t stop wars, but it makes the bad guys look extra guilty. Ingrates!

This is not to underestimate President Clinton’s ability to make other diplomats feel good about themselves or produce impressive pieces of paper. But Mr. Clinton is not running in 2008, and neither Gore nor Kerry had his conspicuous gift for oleaginous empathy. Then again, who knows? Perhaps Al Gore would have Moral Authority gushing out his ear if he’d chosen to leave Saddam in power. No question Hezbollah would be impressed - perhaps enough to aim the rockets to the left a little, so they landed on the outskirts of the playgrounds.

But the revelatory moment in Dean’s assertion was its touching faith in Talk and Work. President Gore or Kerry would have been working day after day after day on the issue. Non stop! Sleeves rolled up, dinner at the desk: make another pot of coffee, Mabel, this Golan Heights dispute won’t solve itself. This suggests they believe the difficulties of the Middle East have the weight and consequence of a tariff dispute. This suggests that they don’t understand that the Hezbollah definition of “Disarm” is blowing off the limbs of Israelis. Imagine a typical negotiation:

Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation; lovely office. Death to Israel.

Gullible American: Well, that’s just rhetoric; we understand.

Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.

(pause)

GA: So you’re saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do that. But you have to show us you’re ready to coexist with Israel.

Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a footnote in history books.

GA: So we agree on principle, and the rest is just a matter of details. Great! We’ll draw up the treaty for the signing ceremony. You’re going to love the pens. They’re Cross. Smoothest pen you’ve ever used.

Hezbollah: I will save it to plunge into the heart of the last Jew to crawl towards the sea.

GA: Do you need your parking validated?

Repeat until the last accords fall apart, then call for new accords.

Howard Dean is not a stupid man; he knows Iran and Syria are the real actors behind this game. But his words placate the netroots people who think that Bush is stumping the country blaming the Hezbollah attacks on Max Cleland. Fine. If Israel eliminates Hezbollah, humiliates the fascists of Syria and lets Lebanon get on with the Cedar Revolution devoid of murder-gang influence, will that be Bush’s doing?

Of course not. He doesn’t have the Moral Authority, like a Pope. Or Bill Clinton.

My friend Bobi and I had a conversation about flipping the "bird". And so I thought a little insight and history of that gesture might be informative to all of you sick freaks that read this crap.

The History Of The Middle Finger

Well, now......here's something I never knew before, and now that I know it, I feel compelled to send it on to my more intelligent friends in the hope that they, too, will feel edified. Isn't history more fun when you know something about it?

Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore they would be incapable of fighting in the future. This famous English longbow was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew") .

Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, See, we can still pluck yew!

Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say, the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodentals fricative F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute!

It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows used with the longbow that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird."

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Do I like the idea of peace? Absolutely! But I like the idea of freedom and economic liberty more. Many of the so-called "peace activists" you hear from today will accept any existence, as long as it is an existence without fighting. Living under a despot with no freedom of thought, speech or worship, and certainly no economic liberty, is preferable to some of these people than fighting -- and dying -- to be free.

The Communists had a rather interesting definition of peace back when the Soviet Union was in full bloom. They said that peace would exist when there was an absence of opposition to communism. Nice twist.

You want peace? Let me tell you of one of the most peaceful places in the world. A solitary confinement cell in a prison. There you will find no conflict. You can sleep at night without any fear of someone coming in through the window to harm you or steal your stuff. You can spend every day secure in the knowledge that there will be no rockets raining down on you, no fights, no threats, no violence. Oh .. .there's no freedom, to be sure. But these peace "activists" don't seem to be concerned about freedom. It's just peace -- an end to the violence -- that drives them. The want to make sure that women and children don't die. Fine! Rob them of all freedom, of all human dignity, of all liberty -- and move them into concentration camps where they're guarded day and night by armed soldiers ready to turn away any threat. Peace will reign! Women and children won't die! Freedom will.

I'm also sick to death of the attempts by the peace-at-any-price crowd to draw a moral equivalence between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas Islamic murderers hide among their own civilian civilizations and lob rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal? To kill civilians and spread terror. The Israelis fire back to kill those who are attacking them. Civilians die. Why? Because the Islamic cowards are hiding behind their women and children. Yeah ... tell me about your moral equivalence.

Hezbollah has fired more than 2000 rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal is not to kill Israeli soldiers. The goal is to kill women and children --- innocent civilians. This is the nature of radical Islam. How could you expect anything else from the Islamic monsters who shot school children in the back in Beslan?

You know, of course, that Hezbollah wants Israel to release some Islamic prisoners. But did you know that one of the prisoners Hezbollah wants released killed a four-year-old girl by slamming a rifle butt into her skull? This Islamic goon crushed the skull of a small Israeli girl with a rifle butt, and the radical Muslims want him released. I suppose there is a grand celebration awaiting him in his hometown if, and when he returns.

Radical Islamists have watched the left in America and in Europe condemn the removal of Saddam Hussein. They have reveled in the criticism leveled against Bush for his efforts to bring a democratically elected government to Iraq. The vilification of Bush has encouraged the Islamic radicals and made them stronger. They now feel that their jihadist goal of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule can be realized. If those who fight them are condemned, and those who appease them are praised, how can you blame them for feeling emboldened?

Israel understands what so many Americans do not. There is a war going on. Islamic terrorists and militants are feeding on the weakness of the West. They're feeding on the weakness shown by the American left that has condemned our president for daring to strike back at Islamofascism.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Times sure are tough for the Democrats. As world attention is drawn to the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, people aren't paying much attention to the left's signature issue: Iraq. Well, Senate Minority Leader (he likes to say 'Democratic Leader,' so people aren't reminded he's in the minority) Harry Reid decided yesterday it was time to pump Iraq back up.

Reid decided that it's time to bring Iraq back to the Senate floor for debate. He declared yesterday that Iraq has spiraled into a civil war. Oh, but Harry Reid wants you to know he has been using restraint. According to him, he has been "somewhat gingerly approaching this. No longer. There is a civil war going on in Iraq. In the last two months, more than 6,000 Iraqis have been killed. That's averaging more than 100 a day being killed in Iraq and we need to make sure there is a debate on this." Poor baby.

Bill Frist's chief of staff called Reid's ploy a 'summer rerun.' That's about right. This is Desperation 101. Democrats, aware that they have absolutely nothing to run on this fall, are playing the only card in their hand: Iraq. It is the reason President Bush is unpopular and they think they can ride the wave. The only problem is sooner or later, voters will want to know what their plan is. Then it will become painfully clear that they don't have one. Nationally, Democrats have nothing to run for, at least nothing they want to promote openly. A platform of higher taxes and bigger government doesn't exactly resonate with most voters. The American people know we can't cut and run and they know we have to support the troops. That pretty much empties the left's tank when it comes to solutions.

Remember: for the Democrats to win, America has to lose in Iraq. It is the Vietnam template being replayed through and through.

For the second morning in a row I've been treated to non-stop coverage on CNN about the evacuation of Americans and others from Lebanon. OK! We get it! People are being evacuated! But this isn't the story! The story is Israel pounding Hezbollah. The story is Israel doing the work of so many other Western nations in ridding the world of a good number of these vicious monsters. And the story is also the Western world getting ready to tell Israel enough .. to drop back ... to hold off ... to allow Hezbollah to regroup and rearm so that Israel can be attacked again.

And what of Lebanon? Yeah, things are certainly rough there. They harbored Hezbollah. They ignored the UN's demands that Hezbollah be disarmed and removed from the Israeli border. They tolerated the Hezbollah's presence ... now they're paying the price. It is sad, truly sad that so many civilians are suffering. Perhaps this could have been averted if they had done something about the presence of these Islamic monsters who were occupying their country. Did the people who are pleading for Lebanon similarly plead for Israel when the Hezbollah would fire rockets into Israel trying to kill Israeli civilians? Somehow, I don't remember that. Perhaps instead of complaining to the world and asking the world to get Israel to leave them alone, they should be asking the world to step in and help Israel rid them of he Hezbollah menace.

How can I say this strongly enough? This isn't between Israel and Hezbollah. This isn't between Israel and the so-called "Palestinians" in the Gaza. This isn't between the U.S. and the Islamic fascists in Iraq. This is between the entire free world and Muslim radicals. This is a shooting, bombing war that is going on in virtually every continent on earth, save Antarctica. This is a world war. On the one side you have Muslims who believe that they are on a mission from god, on the other side you have people of various stripes merely trying to preserve their own way of life.

Friday, July 21, 2006

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

With much of the world pushing for a ceasefire in Lebanon, preferably brokered by the United States (because, after all, Israel is just a puppet of the US -- or are we their puppet? It depends on whose turn it is, I guess, and I lost my schedule), I believe it's time to reintroduce those fine folks to a few simple realities.

1) There are three parties with immediate concerns towards a ceasefire: Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah.

2) The government and military of Lebanon are not directly involved in the current fighting. Indeed, it can be argued that their unwillingness to get involved with the affairs taking place within its borders are a direct cause of the fighting.

3) Hezbollah has expressed no interest in a ceasefire, but rather has ratcheted up both its attacks and its rhetoric.

4) Hezbollah is not a nation-state, but rather a terrorist organization with literal barrels of blood on its hands -- a significant fraction of it American.

5) Israel has clearly stated its terms for a ceasefire from the instant they started shooting back:A) The return of its kidnapped soldiersB) A cessation of attacks by Hezbollah from LebanonC) The securing of Lebanon's southern region to prevent Hezbollah's return.

6) Neither Hezbollah nor any party with influence over them has shown the slightest interest in accepting or even discussing Israel's highly irrational and unreasonable position of "stop killing us, and we'll stop killing you."

7) As Hezbollah is a terrorist organization (which, it always bears repeating, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before 9/11, and still holds the #2 position), and it is the official position of the United States to not have any dealings with terrorist groups.

8) Especially when it comes to saving their asses from getting blown to bits by our ally for committing terrorist acts against that ally.

I'd like to see an international effort to rebuild and strengthen Lebanon, once they have been purged of the cancer of Hezbollah. Not only on humanitarian grounds to avoid the power vacuum that will be created by the long-overdue destruction of Hezbollah. If the Lebanese government doesn't step up and firmly take control, the resulting chaos will prove an open invitation for Syria to once again intervene and "restore order" -- and that puts us right back where this whole sad story began.

But all that is contingent on the elimination of Hezbollah -- if not completely, then weakened to the point where the feeble Lebanese government can reassert control over its own territory and prevent its southern tier from being used as a terrorist staging ground.

So should Secretary of State Rice go to the Middle East and work on brokering a ceasefire? Absolutely. At her soonest convenience.

However, I understand that this week she's getting her hair done. Next week doesn't look good, either, as she has a manicure AND pedicure scheduled, and some shoe shopping pencilled in and lunch many, many important lunch meetings... tell you what, Hezbollah: leave your phone number. We'll get back to you.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Arrogant Israel in Danger of Losing France's Love

Watching the horrific violence unfolding in the Middle East, it’s hard to believe that only six short years ago the land enjoyed an era of unprecedented peace and tranquility, interrupted occasionally by the sound of an Israeli bus rudely exploding. President Clinton’s Oslo Accords proved that the Israeli people and those who want to eradicate them could live together in harmony, provided the Israelis didn’t mind an occasionally exploding bus ride to work. Unfortunately, Israel’s selfish insistence on constantly defending itself has tarnished Bill Clinton’s legacy, and threatens to engulf the entire region in an illegal and unsanctioned-by-France war.

France has a rich history of working collaboratively with others towards a common goal of peace, and have much to offer the Israelis in the way of spiritual advice. Prime Minister Jacques Chirac has strongly condemned Israel’s “completely disproportionate” use of force, urging it to adopt a more diplomatic, and decidedly French approach to ending the bloodshed. But in the height of arrogance, Israel refuses to unconditionally surrender and commence loading its Jews onto boxcars.

There appears to be no end in sight to their extremist arrogance, either. Today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert arrogantly defied the international symphony of flatulence and vowed to “fight on with full force” against the peace-loving Hezbollah people;. Perhaps he should ask himself exactly what they are fighting for. The return of their soldiers? Freedom? Their very existence?

What point is existence if you’ve lost France's love?

It's a question not only for Israel, but for the United States as well.

What you're seeing in the Middle East right now -- the fighting in Lebanon and in Gaza -- are the direct and predictable result of Israel's demonstrations of weakness. You do not show any sign of weakness to Islamic fascists. They will revel in it, and will then attack to press their perceived advantage.

Israel pulls it's citizens and settlements out of Gaza. This Israel does as a show of good faith and an inducement to the so-called "Palestinians" to react with a concession of their own and move toward a lasting negotiated peace. After the Gaza pull out Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked that Israel was "tired" and wanted to work harder for peace. Another sign of Israeli weakness. "We're tired. Please leave us alone."

So ... Islamic terrorists in Gaza build a nice little tunnel and use it to attack Israel. They kidnap an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah Islamic fascists in Lebanon conduct a similar attack from the North. They kill several Israeli soldiers and kidnap two. These were clear-cut acts of war against Israel, and Israel is responding.

Newt Gingrich says that we and the rest of the world have to come to terms that we're in the middle of what he calls World War III. OK, he and I have a bit of a disagreement on that. I believe that the Cold War was World War III, and we won. Small point, so I'll bow to Gingrich on the World War III category.

It's been said that this World War, sometimes called the War On Terror, has an enemy that is difficult to define. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know who the enemy is in this world war: it is the savages who practice radical Islam. We know exactly who they are and we know exactly where to find them: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Let's also be sure to mention the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and a good number of professors in American colleges and universities. This isn't rocket science...it's never been more clear exactly who the enemy is and where to find them.

So what should we do? It's time for the United States, Israel and whoever else values freedom and our way of life to eliminate radical Islam once and for all. The time to speak of toleration, negotiations and appeasement is past. Israel tried this route, and we clearly see what it bought them. Nothing but misery and death at the hands of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam.

Radical Islam needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth. This must be done militarily, not through any more failed negotiations. Anything short of total annihilation of Islamic fascism is unacceptable. The radical Islamic government in Iran should be toppled and its leaders exterminated. Same with Syria. Israel should be fully unleashed and supported in an effort to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. It's time for them to breathe their last breath and be rewarded with their 72 virgins -- or 72 white grapes, as the case may be.

Unfortunately, that's not what's going to happen. The pro-appeasement forces in the United Nations, Europe and the American Democratic Party will call for a halt in the fight before the enemy has been erased. Once again Israel will have come close to destroying her enemies, only to be sold out by the world community. Too bad.

Inside Israel we have leftists marching and demanding an end to Israel's military moves. The appeasement left is pulling out the same mantras perfected by the left in this country. They're detailing the deaths of women and children, and calling for even more negotiations. Never mind that the negotiating has been going on for more than 50 years. Any rational observer can quickly see that the radical Islamist position on negotiations is that you negotiate to buy time, you kill to take the advantage.

One idiot protestor in Israel told a reporter "I think that Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas and release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages. This way this story will come to an end." Yes --- Israel has it's share of leftist idiots too.

This world cannot exist in peace and prosperity as long as we approach radical radical Islam with a politically correct, Mr. Nice Guy hand-off game plan. Israel realizes what's at stake here, Americans need to be reminded.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

We are reaping the entirely predictable rewards from weakness the West has shown toward the mad mullahs who run Iran, and the grotesque gargoyle calling the shots in North Korea. Islamic Jihadists grow bolder and more deadly with every day that passes. They fire rockets into Israel neighborhoods --- Israel responds --- and the American press carefully and methodically catalogues the number of civilians killed as Israel defends itself.

It's war, people. It's the culture of the West, the culture of freedom and religious tolerance, vs. the hate-filled and violent culture of radical Islam. We aren't going to negotiate ourselves out of this one. We aren't going to be able to use our vast wealth to buy peace. Negotiations will show weakness. Money will bring contempt.

Radical Islam must be destroyed. Squashed. The repugnant virus of radical Islam and all of the Islamic terrorists who seek to spread it must be eliminate from the face of the earth. Time to start.

New York, New York (SatireNewsService) - In a stunning development that would appear to have broad implications for the independence of America's newspaper industry, New York Times Publisher, Edwin 'Pinch' Sulzberger today revealed that longtime President Bush advisor Karl Rove has been secretly running the Times' news and editorial operation for almost four years.

According to well-placed insiders on the Times' Board of Directors, a shaken Sulzberger made that announcement in a hastily convened meeting of the Board of the Times' parent company, The New York Times Corp. Sulzberger reportedly told the board that the discovery was made last week.

"During an internal investigation, we reached the regrettable conclusion that Karl Rove has been running this newspaper since at least August, 2002," Sulzberger reportedly stated. "His intention is clear - to ruin the reputation of the newspaper and the party that our editorial policy supports."

Sulzberger reportedly continued: "I ordered an investigation to determine how the Times had come to publish detailed information about a top-secret government monitoring operation of the international financial transactions of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The publication of this information clearly helps an enemy that killed thousands of people just a few blocks from here. Endangering Americans is something the Times would never intentionally do. Unfortunately this story fits a pattern of publication that has almost ruined the Times' reputation for probity and journalistic honesty as well as causing incalculable damage to the Democratic party that our editorial policy supports."

Edith Steingehirn, the Times' internal investigator who made the Rove discovery, told the board: "Our investigation into the publication of the terror financing story quickly led us to discover other frightening actions taken by our news and editorial divisions during the past four years."

"One example of these actions," said Steingehirn was the paper's disclosure six months ago that, the Bush administration had secretly engaged in eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails involving terrorist connections. We published that story just as the successful Iraqi elections were making the news and the Senate was voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act. The timing could not have been better for the Bush administration - it made it look as though the Times would do anything - absolutely anything - to undermine the administration and Iraqi efforts to build a functioning society."

Other examples apparently cited by Sulzberger include the fact that the Times has: 1) run Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prison stories more than one thousand times as often as it has stories about heroic efforts of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens; 2) reported as hard news ad hominem attacks on the president by leading Democrats including statements that President Bush is worse than a Nazi and no better than Saddam Hussein; and 3) published numerous stories of little-known -- though not necessarily top secret -- military and national security information -- thus bringing it to the attention of Al-Qaeda.

Since the Times is closely associated with the Democratic party," said Steingehirn, "these decisions serve to make Democratic leaders seem unserious about terrorism, ungracious toward America's soldiers and sailors, petty about any Iraqi successes in bringing modernity to a backward region, mean-spirited about the President, careless about America's reputation in the world, unwilling to work with Republican colleagues on important legislation and profoundly ignorant about America's history, culture and meaning." said Steingehirn.

Sulzberger was apparently even harsher in his assessment: "Howells, bells!" he is reported to have said to assembled Times staffers. "The things we've done during the past four years make the New York Times appear to be either a treasonous supporter of al-Qaeda or a continuing, theatrical farce of the newspaper business.

"We've had plagiarism and lies from star reporters. We've hired a succession of bungling Executive Editors. We have almost single-handedly wiped out the reporter-source privilege by our incompetent handling of the Plame kerfuffle. The list goes on and on and none of this would have happened without a hidden, guiding hand! And the only hidden hand that is twisted and evil and demented and malicious enough to pull this off is the one attached to the hard right arm of Karl Rove!"

At the White House, Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow stated that he had spoken to Rove about the charges and that Rove is mystified.

"Karl Rove has a whole planet to run," said Snow with characteristic understatement, "he doesn't have the time or inclination to run a parochial newspaper with a declining stock price and diminishing readership."

However, many Times insiders concur with the report. Columnist Paul Krugman stated: "This explains everything. I could never have written - or more to the point - published, so much idiotic crap if Rove had not been in charge."

And columnist Maureen Dowd echoed Krugman's sentiments. "The past few years have been an unmitigated disaster for peace and freedom loving people throughout the upper east side of Manhattan. Only Karl Rove running the Times can explain that!!"

In related stories (see page 14a), executives of both the BBC and CNN have begun internal investigation to determine whether Rove is running their news divisions.

Many friends, insiders and casual observersare still wondering what caused Renee and Kenny's marriage to dissolve so quickly, and how the bride managed to get it annulled based on "fraud," so easily.Finally the facts have finally bubbled to the surface like bubbles tend to do when approaching the surface. According to new court documents, shortly after the 15 minute wedding ceremony on the Caribbean island of St John, Kenny Chesney transformed himself into a rare cricket, known as the Wart-biter (Decticus verrucivorus). When Renee refused to move into a burrow with him (located in the coarse grassesin Hampshire England), Chesney did what most scaly crickets do: copulating more than 50 times with a number of female crickets in a period of four hours. The "extreme repeated mating" appeared to turn off Renee completely, who caught the first flight back to the United States.

Astronauts tend to do only three things:

* give a thumbs up

* smile while listening to rock music piped in by NASA (speaking of which, what's with the tradition of playing rock music over really boring shots of NASA employees smiling like goofs in their short-sleeved shirts? It makes me violent)

* floating around trying to fix something, because frankly, they are bored shitless

Note to NASA: if you want us to give a flying poop about the astronauts then why not show us something interesting? Why not film the astronauts:

* having a poop

* trying to eat soup

* dropping large objects outside and watching them float off? (would be cool to see a washing machine drift off into the black space)

Or why not play pranks on them?

* tell them they're on an unstoppable course toward the sun?

* boom in a loud voice that tells them to "stay away or we will eat you?"

* put laxatives in their Tang?

* have a wife call in to say she's found the hidden porn at home?

These are just my thoughts. and like I always say, my thoughts are your thoughts. If you have any suggestions for what the astronauts should be doing, please let me know, and I will pass it along.

Friday, July 14, 2006

For those of you who have maintained the courage, tenacity along with the idiocy to read my sick demented thoughts, rants, and attempts to be funny, I thought I would bring you up to speed on the status of my spouse.

As most of you know Deb was diagnosed with breast cancer in April of 2005. Since that shock of being informed of the cancer it has been a long and difficult road inclusive of her having a breast removed, all of the lymph nodes on her left side, a full 19 cycles of chemotherapy, scans, blood work, and even two attempts at new and experimental treatments. The bottom line of which is that nothing has worked and the cancer metastasized in other parts of her body. The most damaging metastasis has been to her liver and spine.

As I write this we are in the final stages of the fight. We are talking days not weeks or months. What I have discovered on this long journey is how much we don’t know about cancer and why and how it strikes. We don’t know and haven’t figured out why some people are able to react favorably to chemo and some not. We don’t know if staging works or if the best action is surgery from the onset of the disease. Notwithstanding the progress being made if you have a straightforward oncologist and surgeon they will be honest enough to tell you that they know how much they don’t know. That being said however they will try and do their very best using their collective experience curves. An that is about the best you can expect.

Another lesson I have learned from this experience is that money matters. If you are of means you can extend the life of a loved one by having the necessary funds to pay for things that otherwise would not be employed as a matter of normal and customary treatments. On an emotional level I feel this is wrong but on an intellectual level I understand why it is the way it is. I should add that I do not have a solution to the problem, nevertheless I think we should endeavor to find one.

As a case in point of how money matters I give you my example of how it worked in our case. At the time of being diagnosed with cancer you attend an informal class for the patient and family that explains how chemo works and what to expect once the treatment cycles begin. Deb and I went to the three sessions all attended with folks who had just been diagnosed with some form of cancer. Of the nine patients in the sessions we probably were or could be considered more affluent. Deb is still alive and all of the other folks that were in our initial sessions have not survived with most of them passing away from their cancer in less than a year. Having said this you should also know that I have spent and or used 85% plus of our liquid assets while noting that we have good insurance. Good health insurance doesn’t matter at the end of the day.

And speaking of insurance…. I have been in some form of the insurance business my entire working life. I have been a CEO of two large insurance companies and so I think I know of what and which I speak. The health insurance sector of the insurance industry is a disgrace. Some drugs and procedures that they do not cover are only banned from scheduled payment because they are more expensive than other drugs and procedures that are designed to do the same thing but contain much more expensive ingrediants that differ slightly yet react to some patients better than the generic formulation. But differing drugs have differing effects on people as no one person will react the same with any given drug. But the health insurance industry is actuarially built on averages and will as a matter of business practices black list the more expensive drugs only because of price rather than if they work.

My best friend told me that dying is actually about the living. Too bad she isn’t running an insurance company.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

PARIS HILTON is desperate to start a family because she is convinced she would be a great mother.The star's recent relationships have resulted in failure, including romances with Greek shipping heirs Stavros Niarchos and Paris Latsis. But Paris is yearning to settle down and considers motherhood her most important priority in life.

9 things Paris Hilton is also convinced of ( I couldn't think of 10):

1. That little people live inside the television

2. That you can't get pregnant if you do it in a hang-glider

3. That poor people are actually made of chocolate

4. That you can turn a puppy off just by squeezing it really hard.

5. That Mexican food is made out of Mexicans

6.That all that itching and burning is actually from the new laundry detergent

7. That one day she will visit the internet, but only if someone drives her there

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

When liberals start caterwauling about civility, it reminds me of when my kids were young.

When my daughter Anna was eight and my son, Dylan was four, World War III broke out in our household at least once a day. Anna’s modus operandi, as she explained it to her grandfather, was: “I hit Jonathan. He hits me. Then I tell Mommy.”

In essence, that’s the liberals’ civility scam: They hit us. We hit back. Then their media lap dogs begin howling about incivility and yapping about the decline of gentility in the political debate (which, if I’m not mistaken, started with the presidential election of 1800).

It comes on cue: Ann Coulter writes a book and liberals start spewing about mean-spiritedness.

In her latest foray (“Godless: The Church of Liberalism”), Coulter observed that the “Jersey Girls”--four 9/11 widows who turned themselves into tools of the hate-Bush establishment--reveled in their celebrity status. OK, she also called them “harpies,” too.

Low blow! the media referees of political pugilism cry. (The self-appointed refs always seem to be gazing off into space when liberals rabbit-punch conservatives, or deliver a debilitating kick to the groin.)

Conservative obnoxiousness is a marketing device, the pundits explain. Coulter does it to sell books. Rush Limbaugh does it to boost his ratings.

“There’s something about the momentum of sustaining a reputation based on noise,” sniffs Roger Rosenblatt, “culture critic” for Time Magazine (whose idea of intellectual colloquy is eye-gouging anyone right of Mother Blood). Rosenblatt explains: “Someone like Coulter, in order to sustain a reputation that she’s forged for herself, is likely to think, ‘What can I say now?’ Eventually, how insulting can you get?”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former enabler-in-chief who spent most of her married life plotting to destroy the reputations of women who accused her predator-husband, ran to give the Jersey Girls a big hug. “Perhaps her (Coulter’s) book should have been called ‘Heartless,’” the lady widely known for her warmth and humanity sneered.

But Coulter’s comments about the Jersey Girls weren’t gratuitous. She devoted a chapter in her book to the way the left picks spokesmen whose suffering is supposed to immunize them from criticism--Cindy Sheehan, Nick Berg’s father, Christopher Reeve, the Jersey Girls, etc. When we respond to their crackpot carping, we’re admonished for our stunning insensitivity.

Meanwhile, the leftists have perfected the gentle art of character assassination, while complaining about the politics of personal destruction. Their idea of a civilized dialogue is calling us really-mean Nazis, while our mouths are taped shut.

The quintessence of liberal civility is the thoughtful fashion in which the left expresses its disagreement with the policies of George W. Bush.

When a liberal writes a book about the 43rd. president of the United States, the word “lies,” “lair,” “stupidm” or “evil” must appear in the title. The trifecta of liberal Bush-bashing would be a book titled “The Evil Lies of Stupid Bush” (or, “The Stupid Lies of Evil Bush”).

Illustrative of the liar-liar-pants-on-fire school of liberal analysis, here are just a few of the titles offered on Amazon.com: “The Lies of George Bush” by David Corn; “Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn’t Tell You,” by Paul Waldman; “Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush,” Jerry Politex; “The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq” by Christopher Scheer, Lakshmi Chaudhry, and Robert Scheer; “Bush Lies in State” by Michael McCourt; and “Aliens and Cowboys: Bush’s Legacy of Lies” by Jefferson Lang.

Coming soon to a bookstore near you, “Neener-Neener/ I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I? -- The Intelligent Liberal’s Guide To Political Discourse” by Franken Rodham Moore.

Gun Owners--Homicidal maniacs who want to arm toddlers with howitzers and kill Bambi.

The U.S. Military--Stone-cold killers, Lt. Calley-clones programmed to indiscriminately murder women and children, and torture detainees.

Pro-lifers--Religious fanatics, misogynists who want to turn women into breeding stock, and violence-prone fetus-worshippers who care about life only in the womb.

Immigration Reform Advocates--Xenophobes who are betraying America’s nation-of-immigrants heritage and have an irrational fear of diversity as well as anyone named Juan or Jose.

Politicians Who Support the U.S. Presence in Iraq, but either A) Didn’t serve in the military, B) Served, but didn’t see combat, or C) Served, saw combat, but failed to win the Medal of Honor--Chicken Hawks, nancy boys, and hypocritical jingoists who’ll defend America to the last drop of the other guy’s blood.

In academia, where leftists are demigods, the dialogue has reached heights of elegance and refinement worthy of a Victorian drawing room.

Take Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Americans who died in the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns” responsible for America’s “mighty engine of profit,” while their killers were heroes who made “gallant sacrifices” to strike a blow against the American Reich.

Besides the fact that she loves America and doesn’t sound like a raving lunatic, here are the essential differences between Coulter and Churchill: 1) Coulter isn’t paid by Colorado taxpayers; 2) Students aren’t forced to sit in a classroom and listen to her; (Actually, no one is forced to listen to her) and 3) Professors aren’t getting all weepy while defending her academic freedom.

Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference between us and them is that we can argue as well as inveigh. They can only hurl invectives.

In her new book, Coulter is caustic and cutting. She also makes a devastating case against liberal crime-control policies (the ultimate oxymoron), abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, evolutionism, and public education.

Liberals can’t argue because: 1) Their positions are illogical and indefensible; 2) They’ve controlled the culture for so long that they’ve lost any debating skills they once had (their mental muscles have atrophied); and 3) Since they consider opposition to their agenda by definition evil, they think it’s beneath their dignity to argue with us.

That’s why liberals can’t succeed at talk radio--that, plus the fact that they’re humor-deficient. I may not always agree with Rush, but he’s an articulate, persuasive advocate. As a talk show host, Al Franken (author of the carefully nuanced book “Rush Limbaugh Is a Big, Fat Idiot”) is a great--whatever it is he’s supposed to be.

Because liberals can’t debate, they are forever telling us that on certain issues “the debate is closed”--words I’ve never heard from a conservative.

That and demanding that their viewpoint be subsidized. Speaking at the “Take Back America” conference on June 15 (these days, the left is always taking something back), Rep. Bernie Sanders (VP--Vanguard of the Proletariat--Vermont), urged his fellow progressives to take on “right-wing nuts” (how’s that for civility?) in talk radio. Perhaps Sanders should teach them how to dial a telephone--and demand that conservative stations and newspapers provide “alternative points of view.”

Apparently, controlling the networks (with the exception of FOX), America’s newspapers of record, Hollywood, public education, and the liberal arts faculties of 99.9% of colleges and universities isn’t enough. Sanders wants to force conservative media outlets to subsidize the opposition. (“Mommy, Rush has a weekly audience of 20 million. Make them give me my own talk show!”)

Coulter’s book now is #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers List. Clearly, we need a government program to force book-buyers to purchase liberal tracts.

As a survival skill in the political arena that liberals shaped, conservatives have learned verbal street-fighting. But at least we’re not hypocrites. We don’t sucker-punch the other guy and then start whining about the appalling lack of civility when he hits back.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Bush Releases Rampaging Bulls Onto Streets of Spain

Seven innocent people and one American were seriously injured today as a herd of angry bulls stampeded through the narrow, cobblestone streets of Pamplona, Spain. Usually quiet this time of year, the tiny Spanish villa was packed with mustachioed revelers celebrating the annual San Fermin festival, unaware of the terrible tragedy that was about to befall them. As the bulls raced wildly through the cobblestone alleys, hundreds tried desperately to avoid being trampled or gored, their mustachioed backsides only a few inches away from the crazed animal’s sharp, horn-like protrusions. After killing more Spaniards than the Inquisition, the bulls crashed into the ironically-named “Plaza Del Toros”, where they were finally subdued by flamboyantly gay Elvis impersonators wearing Mickey Mouse ears and brandishing giant martini picks.

No one is certain where the cattle came from or whom they belonged to. At this point, it would be a pure flight of fancy to even speculate as to who was responsible. However, any one of my students will tell you that Texas is the "Longhorn State", make sort of an anxious gurgling sound, and then rush off to the methadone clinic. Spain also drew the ire of the Bush administration when, following a tragic railway accident in March of 2005, a nation that prides itself on displays of fearless male machismo let out a collective girlish squeal and withdrew from his illegal and immoral War on Terror. Bush’s strange appearance in Michigan today has raised eyebrows as well, seeming more like a transparent attempt to establish an alibi than anything else. But if there is any evidence, real or manufactured, that ties the World’s Biggest Terrorist to this unforgiveable attack on the peaceloving Spanish people, it would be Bush's most heinous crime against humanity since he burned that dude in the Nevada desert last year.

Friday, July 07, 2006

President George W. Bush is the very first President to hold a Masters Degree in Business Administration. Even better (or worse, depending on your perspective), his MBA is from Harvard Business School, where postgraduate management training was invented in the early part of the last century, and which to many stands as a symbol of the good, the bad, and the ugly faces of modern management. Harvard MBAs indisputably lead more major corporations, receive higher starting salaries fresh out of school, and carry with them more élan and glamour than the graduates of any rival business schools – facts which do not necessarily lead to admiration and love.

The comparatively small amount of attention paid by the political press to the President’s Harvard MBA partially reflects a generalized ignorance of, and hostility toward, the degree itself. More importantly, acknowledging that he learned any valuable intellectual perspectives would contradict the storyline that young W was a party animal, who coasted through his elite education, scarcely cracking a book. In other words, as the left never tires of claiming, he is too “stupid” to have picked up any tricks across the Charles River from Harvard Square.

There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then-Ambassador to China (technically, head of the Beijing Liaison Office), or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a “gentleman’s C.” I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well-born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.

An inability to learn and apply the lessons of the classroom and the voluminous nightly study materials, from regression analysis to strategy-formulation to marketing to human behavior in organizations, was simply not tolerated. Grading took place on a strict curve, and those who found themselves on the lower range of the curve in too many subjects hit the dreaded “screen” and had to supply convincing rationales to the Academic Performance Committee as to why they should be allowed to attend the second year of the program, much less graduate. The screen was a vital component of the HBS quality assurance program, itself an essential method of protecting the value of the school’s MBA “brand.” Harvard Business School would no sooner voluntarily graduate an incompetent MBA holder than Coca Cola would ship-out bottles containing dead mice.

Accepting the premise that George W. Bush actually learned the lessons taught him at Harvard Business School, there are a number of characteristics of his administration which become far more understandable. Here are a few of the more important ways in which his Harvard MBA explains the way he governs.

The very first lesson drummed-into new students, as they file into the classrooms of Aldrich Hall, is that management consists of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. There is never perfect information, and decisions often have to be made even when you’d really prefer to know a lot more. Given this reality, students are taught many techniques for analyzing the data which is available, extracting the non-obvious facets, learning how read into it the reasonable inferences which can be made, while quantifying the risks of doing so, and learning the costs and value of obtaining additional data.

The job of the executive is to weigh probabilities in evaluating imperfect information; to assess the costs and benefits of acting or not acting; and to construct scenarios around the various possible time frames for taking action, taking into account the probable reactions of the other vital actors. That political opponents at home carp at him over his imperfect data at the time is no surprise, and no reason to regret his decision. The costs of not acting were simply too great, and the downside potential of erroneous information too low to prefer inaction. Better data would have been preferable, of course, but President Bush shows no sign of remorse for doing what he knows was the prudent thing under the circumstances.

A second broad and important lesson the President learned at Harvard Business School is to embrace a finite number of strategic goals, and to make each one of those goals serve as many desirable ends as possible. The truism of this lesson is that if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. If you can’t focus on everything, then you need to be able to focus on those few goals which will have the broadest impact, leading to a future capacity to attain other desirable ends. No exact number of goals is the limit, but three is an awfully good number to aim at. Those goals should be mutually consistent, so that the step-by-step accomplishment of each one aids in the achievement of the others.

There is both evidence and logic to suggest that George W. Bush has chosen just a small handful of major goals. His current number one priority was thrust upon him: winning a complete victory in the War on Terror. There is no evidence that this was on his initial short list of priorities. But after 9/11, he made himself very clear, very quickly, that his priorities had drastically changed. He also set out a realistic time frame – decades – for this number one goal. From this broad goal cascade a series of subordinate tasks, from persuading dictators that it is in their interests to eschew support for terror groups, to strengthening American military, intelligence and domestic law enforcement capabilities, for example.

I think his second broad goal is to build a long-lasting pattern of Republican political dominance of government, by forging a new grand coalition of voting blocs, adding to the existing GOP stalwart groups (conservatives, low tax lovers, the traditionally religious, and small business owners) a substantial number of lower income, but upward-mobility-aspiring members of every group, including ethnic minorities, especially Hispanics, but also as many blacks as possible.

If there is any single theme which unites all these people, it is a belief in the American Dream. The freedom to improve one’s lot in life, along with the ability to marshal the necessary resources without hindrance by oppressive regulations, taxes, or other governmental interference, is one of the cornerstones of this coalition. The goal is not simply to attract poeple by serving their interests, but to convince them to identify themselves with the Republicans, as the political instrument of their dreams.

In the short run, issues of importance to the conservative base may seem to be getting short shrift: government spending, especially on expansion of entitlements and such amenities as the NEA, may help reach out to swing voters, but do not inspire the base. Look for President Bush to address his base directly, as well as symbolically, prior to the election. But understand that he will put more priority on the broad goal of reaching out to expand his voting support than he will on catering to his base, who will, when all is said and done, place so much weight on securing the Presidency for a War on Terror activist (see Goal #1) that they will turn out and vote for his re-election

A third major goal, closely related, is to get and keep the economy growing at a healthy pace. The President inherited an economy moving into recession as he took office. Then, 9/11 knocked the stuffing out of many industries, and dealt a huge financial and psychological blow to the nation. Aggressive tax cuts, augmented by cooperative Federal Reserve management of the money supply and interest rates, have now restored the economy to robust growth. Complaints about low job growth miss two points: that in the early stages of an economic recovery, employers defer adding staff, and that the economy as a whole is moving away from the full-time-job model of work towards independent contracting forms of work, thus omitting many people’s work (including my own) from being counted as a “job.”

A healthy economy which creates opportunities for work and self-advancement generates new members for the American Dream Coalition. A robust and successful conduct of the War on Terror secures domestic safety, encouraging investment and growth, and brings pride as an American to all groups in society. All of these factors encourage more people to identify as Republicans, securing the political goal of the President. The three goals mutually reinforce one another.

Another basic lesson young George W. Bush learned in the classrooms of Harvard Business School is that different managers have legitimately different styles of operating as executives. There is no “one right way” to manage. Successful executives develop a style which is true to their own nature, and which builds on their strengths. George W. Bush is a natural delegator, an executive who seeks the best possible people to work for him, instills loyalty (by practicing it himself), and then gives them plenty of room to operate. His “sins” as an executive have been, and are likely to remain those of a loose leash, allowing ineffective subordinates too much time and too much room. This is why it has taken him so long to remove certain cabinet officials.

The case study method as practiced at Harvard Business School features intense discussions of alternative plans for defining and then resolving the problems described in the B-school’s famous cases. A well-structured spirited discussion has the virtue of systematically revealing the implications of different courses of action, allowing deeper analysis, and ultimately leading to better decisions. President Bush’s preference for keeping senior advisors of different persuasions, such as Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz, reflects the value he places on hearing the best case made for alternative courses of action. Critics who speak of a power struggle which needs to be resolved in favor of one side or the other, completely miss the point.

One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.

By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, a least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.

Only time will tell, whether Saddam ever had any WMDs. Their non-existence has not been proven. Only time will tell whether or not Osama bin Laden (or his corpse) will be taken into custody by American Troops. Only time will tell whether or not Iraq will continue to make progress toward a transition toward a peaceful democratic government. George W. Bush knows much more information about these topics than his domestic political opponents do. At the moment, they are betting a lot of their chips on one side of these questions.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Come on, folks. How much proof do you need that this woman is a complete idiot? She calls George Bush the greatest terrorist in the world, and now she's saying that she would rather live under Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than George Bush in the United States.

Well, Cindy, I know that this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but there's nothing stopping you from moving? If you like Hugo Chavez so much I'm sure he would welcome you down there with open arms! You would get star treatment in return for Hugo being able to use you to continually embarrass George Bush.

Cindy Sheehan is perhaps the left's number one symbol of the anti-war movement. A complete moonbat who wants to live under the dictatorial rule of Hugo Chavez. Hell ... I'll pay for her ticket to Venezuela. One way -- one condition. She renounces her American citizenship when she gets there and burns her passport.

After launching some 7 missiles and being condemned by several countries for it, North Korea is getting ready to do it again. News reports say there are between 3 and 4 missiles on the launching pad in question. The Gargoyle is loving the attention he's getting from all this...so he'll no doubt keep up his temper tantrum.

The United Nations Security Council met yesterday to consider the question of North Korea. The United States, Great Britain, Japan and other countries wanted strong sanctions against North Korea. The Chinese and the Russians wanted a weaker response. Why? Simple. They see North Korea's actions as a direct provocation to the United States. They know that the U.S. is beset by peace-at-any-price weasels who will decry any strong reaction to North Korea's actions. They want to leave this matter on the doorstep of the U.S., knowing that our response will be weak, and will therefore weaken the United States in the eyes of the international community. The left wants a weaker America, so do China and Russia. Kim Jong Il is a very useful fool in this regard.

And so North Korea rolls on, firing more missiles into the Sea of Japan, knowing that its buddies in Russia, China and on the American Left won't do a single thing about it. Perhaps when one of those missiles lands in a populated city, the international community will change its tune.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Well, he finally did it. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il went through with the threat this morning and fired a long-range ballistic missile...the so-called Tae po dong missile, renamed the Tae po Dud. There is special concern over this one because it is technologically capable of reaching the United States with a variety of payloads, including nuclear.

And what of the missile? Well, it went the way of the other missiles that were fired this morning...falling into the Sea of Japan. So either North Korea purposely made the missiles fail after launch or they were incapable of making them work properly...who knows. So what's going to happen now? Despite all of the talk, condemnation and the White House statement that called the launches a "provocation," here is what is in the offing ....

Absolutely nothing.

Oh sure...Japan is threatening North Korea with sanctions. The worthless U.N. Security Council is headed into emergency session this morning. Australia said it would call the North Korean ambassador to complain. I'm sure Kim Jong-Il is shaking in this high-heeled boots. Threats of sanctions mean absolutely nothing. They haven't worked to this point.

And let's think about sanctions from the U.N. Security Council? Please...that didn't stop Saddam Hussein for 12 years. There are ways around sanctions, such as bribing public officials. Let's start the guessing game as to which U.N. officials will be involved in the North Korean bribery scandals we're sure to read about in about five years. North Korea will keep firing its missiles as long as (a) it is tolerated and (b) they perceive a political advantage in doing so. Right now they view the United States as being weak ... thanks in no part to the lack of support we have given Bush for his efforts in Iraq. Peace-at-any-price does, indeed, have a price.

And so it goes...more tough talk against North Korea...without anything to back it up. Perhaps the White House is waiting for North Korea to successfully launch a "real missile?"

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

In 1776 the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. In 1802 the United States Military Academy officially opened at West Point, NY. In 1803 the Louisiana Purchase was announced in newspapers (the Louisiana Purchase Treaty was signed April 30, 1803 and okayed by Congress Oct. 20). The property was purchased by the US from France for $15 million (or 3 cents an acre). The "Corps of Discovery," led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, began the exploration of the territory on May 14, 1804. In 1804 author Nathaniel Hawthorne was born in Salem, MA. In 1826 50 years to the day after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, former presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died; also on this day, American songwriter Stephen Foster was born in Pittsburgh, PA. In 1831 the fifth president of the United States, James Monroe, died in New York City. In 1845 Henry David Thoreau began his two-year experiment in simpler living at Walden Pond, near Concord, MA. In 1863 the Confederate town of Vicksburg, MS, surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. In 1872 the 30th president of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, was born in Plymouth, VT. In 1881 the Tuskegee Institute opened in Alabama. In 1917 during a ceremony in Paris honoring the French hero of the American Revolution, US Lieutenant Colonel Charles E. Stanton declared, "Lafayette, we are here!" In 1934 boxer Joe Louis won his first professional fight in Chicago, IL. In 1939 baseball's "Iron Horse," Lou Gehrig, said farewell to his fans at New York's Yankee Stadium. In 1976 Israeli commandos raided Entebbe airport in Uganda, rescuing almost all of the passengers and crew of an Air France jetliner seized by pro-Palestinian hijackers. In 1987 Klaus Barbie, the former Gestapo chief known as the "Butcher of Lyon," was convicted by a French court of crimes against humanity and sentenced to life in prison. He died four years later at age 77. In 1995 the space shuttle Atlantis and the Russian space station Mir parted after spending five days in orbit docked together. In 1997 NASA's Pathfinder spacecraft landed on Mars, inaugurating a new era in the search for life on the Red Planet. In 2005 NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft took pictures as a space probe smashed into the Tempel 1 comet. The mission was aimed at learning more about comets that formed from the leftover buidling blocks of the solar system. The Deep Impact mission launched on January 12, 2005.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

In the first few centuries of Christianity, no one had any idea that there was anything called a "Bible." Indeed, at that time, there was no Bible. That didn't happen until the 3rd or 4th century, depending on how you look at it.

Most early Christians were probably illiterate. Indeed, it is very likely that many of the original Apostles were illiterate. There is even evidence in the New Testament that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles were illiterate. Peter and Paul and the other New Testament writers often seem to be dictating to someone rather than writing for themsleves. All you have to do is read the beginnings of most of the New Testament books to see that.

Yet they all had a host of ideas and assumptions that they obviously drew from.

Until Martin Luther in the 1500s said that the Bible was the wellspring of Christianity, no Christian ever believed such a thing about the Bible. Neither the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox ever believed such a thing. And they don't believe it still. Neither do most devout Anglican or Lutheran or Calvinist Protestants.

The Bible itself never makes claim to the idea that it is the ultimate Word of God.